[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: [Fwd: Re: LDBM or BDB ?]

To: "Kent L. Nasveschuk" <kent@wareham.k12.ma.us>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: LDBM or BDB ?]
From: Ignacio Coupeau <icoupeau@unav.es>
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2004 10:08:03 +0200
Cc: OPENLDAP <openldap-software@OpenLDAP.org>
In-reply-to: <1080900857.2052.2.camel@1134>
References: <1080900857.2052.2.camel@1134>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113

Kent L. Nasveschuk wrote:

I've asked this question in the past. This is one response I received.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:
Re: LDBM or BDB ?
From:
Ignacio Coupeau <icoupeau@unav.es>
Date:
Fri, 02 Jan 2004 13:07:19 +0100
To:
"Kent L. Nasveschuk" <kent@wareham.k12.ma.us>

A term is a lot of time ;-) We have plans to switch to BDB this summer (we can't change now because the size and complexity of the site). From months ago, some things has been changed (alt least from linux and RH platform point of view): a lot of stability in the Berkeley database and several bugs solved in the server/replication side.

A shortcut: read the Quanah's mails about BDB tunning.

Ignacio


--
____________________________________________________
Ignacio Coupeau, Ph.D.     icoupeau@unav.es
CTI, Director              icoupeau@alumni.unav.es
University of Navarra      icoupeau@ieee.org
Pamplona, SPAIN            http://www.unav.es/cti/

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [Fwd: Re: LDBM or BDB ?]
  - From: "Kent Nasveschuk" <kent@wareham.k12.ma.us>

References:
- [Fwd: Re: LDBM or BDB ?]
  - From: "Kent L. Nasveschuk" <kent@wareham.k12.ma.us>

Prev by Date: RE: cachesize slapd.conf parameter ignored?
Next by Date: Re: [Fwd: Re: LDBM or BDB ?]
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread